Remove Restrictions and let this game breath

[Lephys]

I think the different versions that I've seen over the years have their own pros and cons. Though, I'm not familiar yet with anything past 3.5, and the oldest I played was 2nd Edition. I've also played some Shadowrun, which does really fun stuff with Initiative.

[Gfted1]

2E / 2.5E for me. The good ole days when Strength meant, well, strength and halfling/gnomes couldnt wield weapons that are two sizes larger. *wipes tear from eye*

[Torm51]

Bah my platoon rested in areas that were definitely not friendly. We Just set up a watch. I think you can rest in dungeons. My group just sets up a proper watch rotation

Edited October 25, 2017 by Torm51

[Lephys]

Yeah, but resting was part of your adventure, unless your DM treated it like a typical CRPG and resting was just putting your adventure on pause for a bit purely so you could heal up. Our DM had actual story stuff happen when/whilst we rested, etc.

[Sedrefilos]

I'm between 3,5 and 5th tbh, but I don't like the DnD system much in general

[Goddard]

I'm between 3,5 and 5th tbh, but I don't like the DnD system much in general

Blasphemy!  You don't like D&D? :D Also is that Salem the cat?

 

I really like 2.5 personally.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Goddard

[Sedrefilos]

 

I'm between 3,5 and 5th tbh, but I don't like the DnD system much in general

Blasphemy!  You don't like D&D? :D Also is that Salem the cat?

 

I really like 2.5 personally.

 

I don't like the system that much. D20 is not my thing. And the alignment system is childish for my tastes. Before 3rd, I don't like anything at all, mechanics-wise

I do like the general idea, the worlds and the feeling though. Faerun is one of my most beloved places and I'd kill to see a game in the Dark Sun setting.

Also, no, this is Matte, (my) cat  

[Goddard]

 

 

I'm between 3,5 and 5th tbh, but I don't like the DnD system much in general

Blasphemy!  You don't like D&D? :D Also is that Salem the cat?

 

I really like 2.5 personally.

 

I don't like the system that much. D20 is not my thing. And the alignment system is childish for my tastes. Before 3rd, I don't like anything at all, mechanics-wise

I do like the general idea, the worlds and the feeling though. Faerun is one of my most beloved places and I'd kill to see a game in the Dark Sun setting.

Also, no, this is Matte, (my) cat

 

 

You don't like choosing an alignment?  That is really important for the purpose of role-playing and makes for interesting checks and dialog options in games.  Also cool spells.  That is not to say you can't be reformed evil character or fallen good character.  I love the alignment system.

 

How is it childish?  I would say in BG it is semi-realistic.  People sin and then repent at churches or temples.  

[Valci]

I agree with Sedrefilos... the alignment and more specifically reputation system is laughable. The choices you are given in the BG series are laughable... either you are a goody-goody or you have the option of being a psychotic murderer. There is no grey area... or hardly any at best. Also, there are quests that force reputation on me from the get go.... Like the Nashkel mines right at the start. The Cloakwood Mines are even worse... even if you play an evil charname... why would you chose not to free the slaves? Maybe as chaotic evil, but anything outside that makes no sense... but i want the option to profit from saving them rather then get Rep. from that (potentially upsetting my evil party members)... I literally had to resort to "getting caught stealing" repeatedly for the -1Rep and use Wand of Paralysis on the Flaming Fist guys  (because my character wouldnt just kill people for sport) in order to keep my Rep. average or below. The gist of it is that you can't play a "smart" evil character. A mastermind type that always sees 3 steps ahead and has ulterior motives for helping people when he does do that... Its all black and white.

[Sedrefilos]

The mentality that someone or something is inherently good, neutral or evil and that can also be detected by magic (lol) is immature imo.

I remeber reading the 3rd novel of the Drow trilogy, the one that Drizzt is out of Underdark and living in a forest, doing random stuff. I remeber when he was talking with some blind old ranger or something and he was telling him about good and evil creatures. "How do I know a creature is good or evil?" Drizzt asked "you look at the children" the "wise" old man said. "If they are good to each other, they are good, if they are evil, they are evil. Orcs for instance". I laughed hard, closed the book, put it on the shelf and never read anything from Salvatore again. The first two books were already mediocro to bad, but tat third one was something else

This is the allignement mentality of DnD in a nutshell. And it's not surprising that it's the only system utilising it. Of that I know at least.

[Messier-31]

some blind old ranger or something 

 

Montolio. You could find his cloak in BG2:ToB

 

 

This is the allignement mentality of DnD in a nutshell. And it's not surprising that it's the only system utilising it. Of that I know at least.

 

Pathfinder. But it's 3.5 DnD mostly, so yeah.

 

 

Simply speaking the whole alignement system of Dungeons and Dragons is simplified almost to the limit. In reality good and evil are mingling, so what is considered by one to be an evil act, it could be considered good by someone else. Good people do bad things and the other way round. That is why I prefer reputation systems in FoNV and PoE.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Messier-31

[Sedrefilos]

Simply speaking the whole alignement system of Dungeons and Dragons is simplified almost to the limit. In reality good and evil are mingling, so what is considered by one to be an evil act, it could be considered good by someone else. Good people do bad things and the other way round. That is why I prefer reputation systems in FoNV and PoE.

Exactly. DnD sets specifics of what is evil and what is good, like a religious dogma. Reputations and dispostitions are way much better; they let you explore behaviours and point of views.

[rheingold]

I really don't miss pre-buffing, please don't bring it back.  There is nothing remotely fun buffing your wizard - entering combat and having the first few buffs you used expire because it took you 20 mins to cast all of them! Seriously it was just a chore.

[Sedrefilos]

I really don't miss pre-buffing, please don't bring it back.  There is nothing remotely fun buffing your wizard - entering combat and having the first few buffs you used expire because it took you 20 mins to cast all of them! Seriously it was just a chore.

I believe the devs have already made up their minds about this matter and I don't think we're going to see pre-buffing in almost no rpg ever again

These threads are mostly for us here debating over meaningless stuff just for the sake of it and having some casual and fun arguments about things that 99,99% of players and developers don't care about

[Nail]

I'll stick in here my 5 cents

Pre-buffing is just a time waste and a bit of a cheat, it's fair you can do buffs in combat.

So the character that gives buffs in more dedicated on giving those buffs (supporting) in combat rather then doing damage or something like that.

Without pre-buffs you spend your turn in combat to gain that advantage, not nullifying danger of getting punished for that action - it's more interesting.

[Goddard]

The mentality that someone or something is inherently good, neutral or evil and that can also be detected by magic (lol) is immature imo.

I remeber reading the 3rd novel of the Drow trilogy, the one that Drizzt is out of Underdark and living in a forest, doing random stuff. I remeber when he was talking with some blind old ranger or something and he was telling him about good and evil creatures. "How do I know a creature is good or evil?" Drizzt asked "you look at the children" the "wise" old man said. "If they are good to each other, they are good, if they are evil, they are evil. Orcs for instance". I laughed hard, closed the book, put it on the shelf and never read anything from Salvatore again. The first two books were already mediocro to bad, but tat third one was something else

This is the allignement mentality of DnD in a nutshell. And it's not surprising that it's the only system utilising it. Of that I know at least.

 

I think people that haven't seen evil don't understand it.  It isn't childish.  I've worked in a prison and grew up poor in the city.  It is easy to tell the difference between the evil, the unlawful, and the neutral and good.  I don't think it is childish at all.  It actually provides a good way to think of things.  I remember walking around the city and thinking this guy acts like Aran Linvail.

[IndiraLightfoot]

[Goddard]

Everyone keeps saying they don't like pre-buffing because it was a chore, but I have literally said that we can counter that argument pretty easily.

 

Also you shouldn't even think of it as pre-buffing to be honest.  It is really just more realistic fighting.  i.e. a Simulation in a fantasy world with pre-defined rules for magic, monsters, treasure, and gold.

 

1. You don't need to cast all your pre-buffs at every encounter.

2. Removing pre-buffing removes a big part of RPG games.  It removes ambush and you being ambushed.  It removes logical story, meaning your character is so dumb and is perpetually caught off guard.  

3. The game should use intelligent characters to provide clues, isn't that what we got all these skill checks for?  In order to do skill checks and have extra story clues and triggers for fun?

4. In single player games pre-buffing becomes important in conjunction with item storage and counting in game creation.  The game developers can "balance" things by simply counting the number of items given.

5. Removing that game dynamic eliminates many possibilities for more interesting combat.  Dispel magic for example will be virtually unimportant without pre-buffing.  Detect Evil characters now becomes pointless.  A stealth character now always has an advantage over everything because now we only care about what happens in combat and no non-detection, or detect invisibility.   

[Valci]

 

The mentality that someone or something is inherently good, neutral or evil and that can also be detected by magic (lol) is immature imo.

I remeber reading the 3rd novel of the Drow trilogy, the one that Drizzt is out of Underdark and living in a forest, doing random stuff. I remeber when he was talking with some blind old ranger or something and he was telling him about good and evil creatures. "How do I know a creature is good or evil?" Drizzt asked "you look at the children" the "wise" old man said. "If they are good to each other, they are good, if they are evil, they are evil. Orcs for instance". I laughed hard, closed the book, put it on the shelf and never read anything from Salvatore again. The first two books were already mediocro to bad, but tat third one was something else

This is the allignement mentality of DnD in a nutshell. And it's not surprising that it's the only system utilising it. Of that I know at least.

 

I think people that haven't seen evil don't understand it.  It isn't childish.  I've worked in a prison and grew up poor in the city.  It is easy to tell the difference between the evil, the unlawful, and the neutral and good.  I don't think it is childish at all.  It actually provides a good way to think of things.  I remember walking around the city and thinking this guy acts like Aran Linvail.

 

 

I think people understand it just fine. Its just the poor implementation that throws a spanner in their logic... which like i said has more to do with the reputation system in BG then the alignments themselves. It's stupid difficult to play an evil party because the game assumes that if you for ex. saved the slaves in the cloakwood mine (didnt let them drown) you did it out of the goodness of your hart instead of maybe letting you exploit them... as in make them work for you as payment for their lives for example. Simply raising my Rep. by 2 points is stupid in the context of the game... and it will put off my evil companions... plus it ruins my role-playing. My character can have a very self-serving reason for not letting the slaves die... the game doesnt account for that though...

[Goddard]

 

As much as I think it is comical, this is just an example of stupidity which you can never fixed by changing any rule or system. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Goddard

[Goddard]

 

 

The mentality that someone or something is inherently good, neutral or evil and that can also be detected by magic (lol) is immature imo.

I remeber reading the 3rd novel of the Drow trilogy, the one that Drizzt is out of Underdark and living in a forest, doing random stuff. I remeber when he was talking with some blind old ranger or something and he was telling him about good and evil creatures. "How do I know a creature is good or evil?" Drizzt asked "you look at the children" the "wise" old man said. "If they are good to each other, they are good, if they are evil, they are evil. Orcs for instance". I laughed hard, closed the book, put it on the shelf and never read anything from Salvatore again. The first two books were already mediocro to bad, but tat third one was something else

This is the allignement mentality of DnD in a nutshell. And it's not surprising that it's the only system utilising it. Of that I know at least.

 

I think people that haven't seen evil don't understand it.  It isn't childish.  I've worked in a prison and grew up poor in the city.  It is easy to tell the difference between the evil, the unlawful, and the neutral and good.  I don't think it is childish at all.  It actually provides a good way to think of things.  I remember walking around the city and thinking this guy acts like Aran Linvail.

 

 

I think people understand it just fine. Its just the poor implementation that throws a spanner in their logic... which like i said has more to do with the reputation system in BG then the alignments themselves. It's stupid difficult to play an evil party because the game assumes that if you for ex. saved the slaves in the cloakwood mine (didnt let them drown) you did it out of the goodness of your hart instead of maybe letting you exploit them... as in make them work for you as payment for their lives for example. Simply raising my Rep. by 2 points is stupid in the context of the game... and it will put off my evil companions... plus it ruins my role-playing. My character can have a very self-serving reason for not letting the slaves die... the game doesnt account for that though...

 

 

That matches with reality because people often assume good intentions in our society?

 

When have you ever done something evil or bad in real life?  Good people are astonished and horrified.  Now a break in game logic is just a design oversight or lack of time.  

[Valci]

maybe in your society but certainly not in mine mate... In my experience there are very few people that help you "just because". Most either have an ulterior motive or they get something out of it themselves.

 

That depends on the level of bad you go to. But either way in real-life (which is silly to compare to because of the difference in the level of civilization anyway) you become "infamous" at the least. People learn to fear you if nothing else. I dont see that reflected... (or very rarely reflected) in a game like BG. Disliked/Despised dont cover that at all... just like shopkeepers charging you more is stupid. How about a discount for me not chopping your head of eh?!

[Goddard]

maybe in your society but certainly not in mine mate... In my experience there are very few people that help you "just because". Most either have an ulterior motive or they get something out of it themselves.

 

That depends on the level of bad you go to. But either way in real-life (which is silly to compare to because of the difference in the level of civilization anyway) you become "infamous" at the least. People learn to fear you if nothing else. I dont see that reflected... (or very rarely reflected) in a game like BG. Disliked/Despised dont cover that at all... just like shopkeepers charging you more is stupid. How about a discount for me not chopping your head of eh?!

 

Yeah that is why it is a fantasy world and different creatures, or even groups of creatures create societies and those societies have different ideas about the world and the way they live their life. 

 

You have to think of things in a more fixed nature such as in the past.  Before cars, or trains were invented people were separated and each culture had a very specific view on things that either went back through story telling or religious doctrine. 

 

Today In cities usually people normally out for themselves and money and that is why in games you find more thieves, and people out for themselves.  If you go to rural areas usually people are more laid back and they are more willing to help.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Goddard

[Goddard]

Imagine having to write your own journal entries and make your own maps.  That sounds like it could be adapted and used again in fun ways.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Goddard

[Sedrefilos]

We keep saying pre-buffing is a chore because we feel it is a chore and it is a very popular belief if we see that every rpg has gone away with pre-buffing and no one seems to bothered by it, untill now

Else it would have been back. At least there would have been the "school" of "pre-buffing is fun" developers who would have used it in their games. But there are not.

You need to strike a balance between realism and fun gameplay and, as far as magic goes, you can decide what realism is, pretty much